<p class="bodytext">The grant of bail to Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader K Kavitha by the Supreme Court and the observations made by the court are in line with many recent decisions and pronouncements of the court on citizens’ rights. The court has repeatedly held that the right to life is the most important fundamental right and personal freedom cannot be snatched away by the Executive on whimsical and arbitrary grounds. Kavitha was arrested in the so-called Delhi liquor case under the PMLA on March 15 and had been in jail since. Some of the observations that the court made touch upon the charges against her pressed by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), as in the cases against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, the latter of whom was also recently released on bail by the court. They raise critical questions about the functioning of these agencies, their methods of investigation, and the evidence that they collect and cite against accused persons. </p>.Delhi Liquor Scam: BRS leader K Kavitha released from Tihar jail after 5 months .<p class="bodytext">The court raised questions about the fairness of the investigating agencies and the practice, which is also seen in other Delhi liquor cases, of relying on the statements of approvers for evidence. The court told the agencies that they could not pick and choose, and again questioned the evidentiary value of an accused making statements against another accused. These are important in a fair trial, which is the right of all citizens. The court raised the issue of the slender chances of an early trial in the case which has 493 witnesses and 57 accused. In such a situation, the process becomes the punishment, as the court has often said, and justice would elude the accused. The court also described an order of the Delhi High Court, which had denied bail to Kavitha, on the ground that she was educated and independent, as perverse. It also noted that the investigations in the case had been completed, and that Kavitha did not pose a flight risk. The court has asserted that the normal rules of bail would apply in her case and there was no reason for curtailing her freedom. </p>.<p class="bodytext">These are a reaffirmation of the policy and a reiteration of the ideas articulated by the court in recent cases. It has also told the lower courts to follow them when they decide cases that involve the freedom of the individual. In <br />some other cases it has insisted that proper procedure laid down by the rule of law should be followed by investigative agencies in the case of arrests and remand. All these underline the value of personal freedom, and should act as a restraint on excessive and arbitrary executive actions that seek to curb it. </p>
<p class="bodytext">The grant of bail to Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader K Kavitha by the Supreme Court and the observations made by the court are in line with many recent decisions and pronouncements of the court on citizens’ rights. The court has repeatedly held that the right to life is the most important fundamental right and personal freedom cannot be snatched away by the Executive on whimsical and arbitrary grounds. Kavitha was arrested in the so-called Delhi liquor case under the PMLA on March 15 and had been in jail since. Some of the observations that the court made touch upon the charges against her pressed by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), as in the cases against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, the latter of whom was also recently released on bail by the court. They raise critical questions about the functioning of these agencies, their methods of investigation, and the evidence that they collect and cite against accused persons. </p>.Delhi Liquor Scam: BRS leader K Kavitha released from Tihar jail after 5 months .<p class="bodytext">The court raised questions about the fairness of the investigating agencies and the practice, which is also seen in other Delhi liquor cases, of relying on the statements of approvers for evidence. The court told the agencies that they could not pick and choose, and again questioned the evidentiary value of an accused making statements against another accused. These are important in a fair trial, which is the right of all citizens. The court raised the issue of the slender chances of an early trial in the case which has 493 witnesses and 57 accused. In such a situation, the process becomes the punishment, as the court has often said, and justice would elude the accused. The court also described an order of the Delhi High Court, which had denied bail to Kavitha, on the ground that she was educated and independent, as perverse. It also noted that the investigations in the case had been completed, and that Kavitha did not pose a flight risk. The court has asserted that the normal rules of bail would apply in her case and there was no reason for curtailing her freedom. </p>.<p class="bodytext">These are a reaffirmation of the policy and a reiteration of the ideas articulated by the court in recent cases. It has also told the lower courts to follow them when they decide cases that involve the freedom of the individual. In <br />some other cases it has insisted that proper procedure laid down by the rule of law should be followed by investigative agencies in the case of arrests and remand. All these underline the value of personal freedom, and should act as a restraint on excessive and arbitrary executive actions that seek to curb it. </p>
